35 comments:

Do no touch the Lord's Annointed or any of his community {<---strike} global programs.

(Where are all those touchy feely therapeutic social service people now that we have a veritable elephant in the living room that no one will talk about? They are always so big about talking about what isn't supposed to be talked about.)

Reid is hoping that everyone gets re-illusioned by his smoke and mirrors. It is too late for that, since the Palin Facebook Posts have made transparent the shells being moved around so quickly by the shell gamers that now everybody can see where the pea really ends up. The most feared word among these DC Liars is transparency. Thanks Sarah.

Opponents of health care would have a lot more credibility if they hadn't already distorted the bill in order to make scurrilous and false charges (i.e. characterizing the authorization to pay physicians for participating in voluntary end-of-live discussions as meaning 'mandatory death panels.') Comparing the Obama health care plan to what happened at Dachau also removes any shred of credibility they may have had.

Eli Blake ...You are just expressing sour grapes at the transparency revealing the necessary part of this cost cutting bill designed to ration services by cutting services by a a cruel utilitarian faceless bureaucracy. Of course that is not a Death Panel...it is only a Life For Some and Not For Some Others Panel. Thanks for adding that correction.

Yeah, that's why the GOP is against having their amendments be posted online before they're considered on the floor, as they've asked of Democrats. Yup, the Republicans are all about transparency. Have been for years. Ya betcha.

It is the current situation in which health care is rationed and bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies (i.e. Nataline Sarkisian.) If the Government were doing the same thing there would actually be some accountability (i.e. you don't like the job they are doing? vote them out. But you can't even sue insurance companies like CIGNA, which decided to kill Nataline so they could save a few bucks.)

Since you seem anxious to control the terms of the debate, what debate will you allow the opponents of health care to have?

It would be so cool if you could just tell the opponents to STFU, I suppose, but you know, the people who oppose this risky scheme have the right to express their own opinions, even if (now this is the critical part) their opinions make you feel icky or threatened.

The doctors apparently thought it would work, they estimated a 65% chance that she would survive. But apparently 2-1 odds in favor aren't good enough for CIGNA.

And as I said, thanks to ERISA there is nothing that anyone can do if they do deny you. So a government plan is therefore more accountable because at least you can vote the leaders of the government out of office.

miller:

I think you missed the point of the statement. It said nothing at all about the terms of the debate, it was about the substance of the debate, apparently a difference which eludes you.

Eli Blake...You are blessed to be living under a benevolent government where Civil Service Bureaucrats with 20 years service actually fear being "voted out" more than a profit making business competing for a market share fears getting bad PR. Please tell me where that is so that we can all come and live in Nirvanna with you.

if you want to be taken seriously, don't be so disingenuous and dishonest regarding rationing, i.e."death panels" like the mammagraphy recommendations that would according to George Stephanopolous have the force of law under the House and Senate bills. deal with the real arguments, not misstated or bizarre straw men. no one is an idiot here.

The Civil service bureaucrats serve at the behest of the administration then in charge (which does have the right to state what their duties and guidlines are.) Their bosses are accountable. Try voting out the CEO of CIGNA.

As for bad press, insurance companies get it all the time. Since six large companies ultimately control over 90% of the health insurance market in the U.S., it's not like there is a great deal of competition for them to worry about, especially since they all get bad press sometimes.

Somefeller...You are right about the GOP ole boys hating transparency too. That is precisely why Palin made her bones going after the GOP corruption first in Alaska, and then going after the Demonrats.I am encouraged that you are thinking like Sarah Palin does.

Opponents of health care would have a lot more credibility if they hadn't already distorted the bill in order to make scurrilous and false charges (i.e. characterizing the authorization to pay physicians for participating in voluntary end-of-live discussions as meaning 'mandatory death panels.') Comparing the Obama health care plan to what happened at Dachau also removes any shred of credibility they may have had."

Ah, so the fact that some opponents ave made exagerrated claims about Democratic healthcare reforms means that there can be no legitimate opposition to said measures. Nice.

This kind of "reasoning" is useful, though.

Pelosi, Ried, Grayson, etc have said that those opposing Obama-Care* want evey sick person to die and are Nazis. That means that all supporters of Obama-Care* are insane assholes and that there can be no legitimate support for these reforms. Afterall, such exagerrations mean that Reid et al lack credibility.

So, those who oppose Obama-Care* have no credibility, and those that support Obama-Care* have no credibility either. What a world, what a world!

...

* Obama-Care is truly a horrible name for this stuff. Obama has had next to nothing to do with it. He asked Congress to do something, and Congress is doing something. No idea if it contains specific proposals he supports, other than that the government should do something. Another passive policy non-position from an extremely passive President**.

...

** For that matter, is President really a good title for someone who doesn't actually want to get out in front on any of the issues? Does being President mean he gets to be first in line to not have an opinion about what he shouldn't do next?

The Amazing Mr Obama is very good at "being present" and seeing his gift working to spread around all the Money that definitely belongs to Caesar these days. But will this Caesar ever let free Americans earn and keep some of his money again?

Somewhere else, just yesterday, I read an off-topic (IIRC) comment to the tune of how stupid and horrible Sarah Palin is. The poster didn't use "bad words" but the message wasn't any different than if she had used bad words. When she was (inevitably) disagreed with in strong terms it was all... why do we have to be so disrespectful, this is what destroys dialog, etc., etc.,

And I think she was serious in her misapprehension that *she* was the voice of reason and that her opinions were reasonable and that the impediment to dialog was everyone other than herself.

I do agree that "you're an idiot" doesn't promote dialog, but it really isn't substantially different from saying so much but in other words that don't include "idiot." If one remarked that quite clearly the facts were other than what the first person supposed or that quite obviously the issue had different antecedents and thus an entirely different solution... it *might* be less rude but it wouldn't be substantially different than simply saying the first person was an idiot.

But that's tone!

"We must avoid the temptation to drown in distractions and distortions" is most probably what it sounds like... not a call to parliamentary order to avoid "off topic" discussion, but a preemptive move to shut down the opposition and an excuse not to address their concerns.

So a government plan is therefore more accountable because at least you can vote the leaders of the government out of office.

LOL. As so many have noted, it's not the elected officials who will be making these decisions, it's the entrenched, faceless bureaucrats. Good luck pointing fingers and holding anyone accountable if this monstrosity is implemented.

Synova, I'm with you on the "denying health care" canard. Everyone is already guaranteed health care. If you can get to an ER, you are legally entitled to care there. What we don't have a right to, of course, is health insurance.

It just seems so obvious to me that we need to decouple insurance from employment, and move everyone away from the "insurance pays for everything" model we have now, which has led to all the jacked-up costs we're dealing with -- when you're not spending your own money, it's amazing how much easier it is to spend. We should go back to paying for routine medical care and have insurance policies for hospitalization and catastrophic care. It would be *much* less expensive to buy everyone a catastrophic care policy than to try to cover everyone under the ridiculous system we have now.

As I said, the solution seems obvious. The hard part is getting from here to there. What was that Obama promised, change? As if.

The Democrats have the votes they need, and have long ago become convinced that any bill that permits greater government control of healthcare is better than doing nothing.

It will pass, and once reconciled with the House bill, will become law.

After that, even if blue dog Dems are later voted out, the law will stay, permanently, as was the plan. The bad things the right predicted will come true, some of the good things the left predicted will, too.

But, with the car company takeover and then the healthcare takeover, the US economy is effectively corporatist fascist, and we are no longer a free people. Just another nation that treats its subjects like so many blocks of wood; more benevolent than most perhaps, but the fed is now our feudal master.

Thanks to all here who voted for the Democratic super-majority, the USA is now officially dead.

Instapundit links to a Powerline story on the Rasmussen poll telling how angry people are and how unpopular the healthcare takeover is (MAD AS HELL).

Big deal.What people do not seem to understand is that the Democrats will do this anyway. They don't give a shit what you think about it. The time for telling the government "hands off" was Nov. 4, 2008. Threatening to vote them out in 2010 will have little effect, if any. Their vote on this will secure them power forever, or until we run out of money.

Too late now.This was a Californication, and we can't even have a cigarette after it, since our new masters say it's bad for us.

So a government plan is therefore more accountable because at least you can vote the leaders of the government out of office.

This make come as a complete shock to some but the individuals that will be running any government health plan will not be elected official but appointed bureaucrats. The idea that Congress will be accountable under this plan is laughable.

Also can you point out what section of ERISA grants health insurance companies immunity from civil suits?

Despite its huge price tag, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 2,074-page bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade.

This shell game is only possible because the taxes would start being levied next year but the payouts don't start until 2014. We're supposed to believe that the government is going to "save" these early tax collections and apply them to the payout years*. This immediately makes it apparent that the taxes collected during the payout years won't be enough to cover the projected expenses. Also, the 10 year reference is totally artifical. The program won't end in 10 years. What are the projected costs for subsequent years compared to what we're paying now?

*I'd love to see some examples of Congress not spending every dime it can get it's hands on, either through taxes or borrowing.

...Also can you point out what section of ERISA grants health insurance companies immunity from civil suits?

I can take this one.

It is not precisely accurate to say they are “immune from civil suits.” It is accurate to say (1) it is unduly difficult to prevail in a civil suit against them, because of the absurd burden of proof (i.e. arbitrary and capricious instead of preponderance of the evidence) the claimant must satisfy; and (2) if the claimant does prevail, the available remedies are so stingy they are utterly meaningless to the insurance company, and always – always – fail to make the claimant whole.

They are immune from civil liability for bad behavior up to and including fraud and wrongful death. They commit fraud and kill people with impunity.

The preemption section of ERISA, the one that says it supercedes state law, is 29 USC section 1144. The Supreme Court cases that held ERISA eradicated state law remedies for insurance company fraud started with Pilot Life v. Dedeaux.